A small victory for State
According to the WaPo today, the State Dept. appears to have won a battle with the DoD over the use of military personnel to protect Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Iraq. PRTs are small teams of mixed civilian and military personal working outside the central area of command. In Afghanistan, PRTs have been one of ...
According to the WaPo today, the State Dept. appears to have won a battle with the DoD over the use of military personnel to protect Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Iraq. PRTs are small teams of mixed civilian and military personal working outside the central area of command. In Afghanistan, PRTs have been one of the more effective ways to create interagency cooperation and to extend government control into the countryside. In Iraq, the PRT strategy has been slow to develop.
According to the WaPo today, the State Dept. appears to have won a battle with the DoD over the use of military personnel to protect Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Iraq. PRTs are small teams of mixed civilian and military personal working outside the central area of command. In Afghanistan, PRTs have been one of the more effective ways to create interagency cooperation and to extend government control into the countryside. In Iraq, the PRT strategy has been slow to develop.
A recent report published in Parameters, a journal out of the Army War College, examined the role of PRT’s in Afghanistan, touting their potential in stabilization and reconstruction projects and calling for more to be put in place. It also detailed a number of areas in which a stronger military leadership would help to clarify missions and accomplish greater results. This is an operational approach that the military should be embracing, not denigrating.
So why has the Pentagon been so reluctant to get drawn into the project in Iraq? Maybe because it conflicts with artificial timelines for drawing down troop levels, or because it expands the scope of their responsibilities in the country. But most likely, it is because the DoD just doesn’t like putting troops under the control of the State Department. Bridging the gap between security and development is one of the most important ways to defuse low-intensity conflict. This would be a good area in which to set aside the detrimental turf wars within the administration
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.